First Man
2.5/4
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Claire Foy, Kyle Chandler, Jason Clarke, Ciaran Hinds
Rated PG-13 for Some Thematic Content involving Peril, and Brief Strong Language
The Space Race always fascinates, and probably will continue to do so, because it speaks to the explorer in all of us. There is a certain part of every human being that seeks to push boundaries, to answer the unknown, and to go where others have not. When a movie taps into this, such as "The Right Stuff" or "Interstellar," the results can be captivating. However, much as he tries, Damien Chazelle can't generate the same thrill of discovery that those other films did.
On paper, "First Man" is about Neil Armstrong's journey to becoming the first man to step on the moon. However, as a result of trying to do too much and a poorly thought out screenplay, "First Man" is a muddled, confusing mess. There's Neil, of course, well played by the always interesting Ryan Gosling, his wife Janet (Foy), his boss Deke Slayton (Chandler), good buddy Ed White (Clarke), the government man Robert Gilruth (Hinds), and a host of other names of varying fame. All of them are trying to do one thing: get a man on the moon. Preferably before the Russians.
"First Man" is a confusing, but at times riveting, drama that feels a lot messier than it should. Because Chazelle relies on unnecessary hand held shots and unending closeups, it's impossible to identify who is who, much less care about them. When something bad happens to someone, I found myself asking, "Who?" For historical relevance or context, a Wikipedia page will be a better use than "First Man." Part of the blame has to go to Josh Singer's script, but Chazelle does not help matters. There's no sense of scale. He's making a spectacle with the sensibilities of a microbudget indie. Imagine if Christopher Nolan had directed "Interstellar" as if he believed he only had a hundred grand to make it, rather than the $165 million he actually had.
Ryan Gosling is in fine form, although the role as written is beneath it. He merely has to act shy and withdrawn. Too little time is spent exploring who Neil actually is. Claire Foy is a scene stealer as his wife Janet, who understands him but eventually gets fed up with his reluctance with intimacy. Kyle Chandler appears mainly because he was tailor made for movies of this era. Ciaran Hinds is an odd choice for a movie like this, but he does fine. The supporting characters read like a list of interesting character actors, but the film is so scattershot and so poorly focused that it's hard to recognize any of them.
The film's greatest success is the space flight scenes, which are spectacular. By rigorously avoiding any sort of manipulation and sticking as close to realism as he can, Chazelle creates moments that will have the audience in awe. Or at least they would if there had been anything but a mess to support them. The centerpiece, the Apollo 11 mission, would be worth the price of admission alone had the proceeding 90 minutes been coherent.
Now, as for the American flag controversy. I wrote that the criticism had a point, but ultimately premature and thus unfair. Having seen the film, I have to say that there really isn't anything to get in a fuss about. The American flag is still there. People compliment the Americans for getting it done. Thus the claims that this is "unpatriotic" are unfair. Ultimately, the film is Neil's story. This is how he saw it, how he felt about it, what he went through. The only thing that is missing is him actually putting the flag into the ground, which was probably a choice made by Chazelle and his editors during post-production for timing and pacing reasons. But again, this is understandable since Chazelle is focused strictly on Neil himself rather than the big picture. At no point is this movie some sort of "liberal revisionism," not does it ever negate the hard work by many people to get to that moment. Quite the opposite, in fact. Those who claim otherwise haven't seen the movie, or are lying for political brownie points. Either way, they should be ashamed of themselves.
There are parts of "First Man" that are admirable, even praise worthy. But there are too many problems to make it worth a trip to the theater. Which is doubly tragic since it's on a big screen where the film's strengths would shine the most.
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Claire Foy, Kyle Chandler, Jason Clarke, Ciaran Hinds
Rated PG-13 for Some Thematic Content involving Peril, and Brief Strong Language
The Space Race always fascinates, and probably will continue to do so, because it speaks to the explorer in all of us. There is a certain part of every human being that seeks to push boundaries, to answer the unknown, and to go where others have not. When a movie taps into this, such as "The Right Stuff" or "Interstellar," the results can be captivating. However, much as he tries, Damien Chazelle can't generate the same thrill of discovery that those other films did.
On paper, "First Man" is about Neil Armstrong's journey to becoming the first man to step on the moon. However, as a result of trying to do too much and a poorly thought out screenplay, "First Man" is a muddled, confusing mess. There's Neil, of course, well played by the always interesting Ryan Gosling, his wife Janet (Foy), his boss Deke Slayton (Chandler), good buddy Ed White (Clarke), the government man Robert Gilruth (Hinds), and a host of other names of varying fame. All of them are trying to do one thing: get a man on the moon. Preferably before the Russians.
"First Man" is a confusing, but at times riveting, drama that feels a lot messier than it should. Because Chazelle relies on unnecessary hand held shots and unending closeups, it's impossible to identify who is who, much less care about them. When something bad happens to someone, I found myself asking, "Who?" For historical relevance or context, a Wikipedia page will be a better use than "First Man." Part of the blame has to go to Josh Singer's script, but Chazelle does not help matters. There's no sense of scale. He's making a spectacle with the sensibilities of a microbudget indie. Imagine if Christopher Nolan had directed "Interstellar" as if he believed he only had a hundred grand to make it, rather than the $165 million he actually had.
Ryan Gosling is in fine form, although the role as written is beneath it. He merely has to act shy and withdrawn. Too little time is spent exploring who Neil actually is. Claire Foy is a scene stealer as his wife Janet, who understands him but eventually gets fed up with his reluctance with intimacy. Kyle Chandler appears mainly because he was tailor made for movies of this era. Ciaran Hinds is an odd choice for a movie like this, but he does fine. The supporting characters read like a list of interesting character actors, but the film is so scattershot and so poorly focused that it's hard to recognize any of them.
The film's greatest success is the space flight scenes, which are spectacular. By rigorously avoiding any sort of manipulation and sticking as close to realism as he can, Chazelle creates moments that will have the audience in awe. Or at least they would if there had been anything but a mess to support them. The centerpiece, the Apollo 11 mission, would be worth the price of admission alone had the proceeding 90 minutes been coherent.
Now, as for the American flag controversy. I wrote that the criticism had a point, but ultimately premature and thus unfair. Having seen the film, I have to say that there really isn't anything to get in a fuss about. The American flag is still there. People compliment the Americans for getting it done. Thus the claims that this is "unpatriotic" are unfair. Ultimately, the film is Neil's story. This is how he saw it, how he felt about it, what he went through. The only thing that is missing is him actually putting the flag into the ground, which was probably a choice made by Chazelle and his editors during post-production for timing and pacing reasons. But again, this is understandable since Chazelle is focused strictly on Neil himself rather than the big picture. At no point is this movie some sort of "liberal revisionism," not does it ever negate the hard work by many people to get to that moment. Quite the opposite, in fact. Those who claim otherwise haven't seen the movie, or are lying for political brownie points. Either way, they should be ashamed of themselves.
There are parts of "First Man" that are admirable, even praise worthy. But there are too many problems to make it worth a trip to the theater. Which is doubly tragic since it's on a big screen where the film's strengths would shine the most.
Comments
Post a Comment